BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.361 of 2016

Date of Instt. 22.08.2016

Date of Decision : 31.08.2016

Prabhjit Singh son of Bikar Singh, R/o Mundha Kalan, District Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

Assistant Executive Engineer Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub-Division, Rurka Kalan, District Jalandhar.

.........Opposite party

Complaint Under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.DK Sharma Adv., counsel for the complainant.

Order

Bhupinder Singh (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the 'The Consumer Protection Act' against the opposite party (hereinafter called as OP) on the averments that Punjab Government provided tube-well connection under its chairman quota and the complainant applied for priority tube-well connection from chairman quota and submitted the requisite documents. The complainant also deposited fee Rs.20,000/- vide receipt dated 30.5.2016 but the OP did not install the said tube-well connection on priority basis on the ground that only one connection will be admissible in the priority category to the applicant during his life time vide letter dated 9.6.2016. The complainant submitted that he is ready to get his earlier connection cut or withdraw or cancelled to obtain new connection for 10BHP Power. Therefore, the complainant requested that if there is any such condition of granting the only connection, the OP may cut or withdraw the earlier connection bearing No.AP21/856F to ensure provision of AP connection to the complainant but the OP can not refuse to provide the aforesaid connection to the complainant. So, the OP be directed to install the tube-well connection on priority basis from the chairman quota to withdraw/cut the connection already provided to him. The complainant also claimed compensation and any other relief permissible.

2. We have heard the counsel for the complainant and have minutely gone through the record.

3. The complainant has also placed on record the letter bearing No.429/30 dated 9.6.2016 written by OP to the complainant, in which the OP has told the complainant that his case can not be processed under chairman quota for agriculturist tube-well on the ground that for the place the complainant has applied for priority tube-well connection under chairman quota, already tube-well connection bearing No.AP21/856F drip system has been running and as per clause 13.2 ESIM condition No.1(i) only one tube-well connection under the priority category is admissible. The complainant further told that he has filed a wrong affidavit that he has not other tube-well connection under the priority tube-well connection scheme nor he had ever applied for. So, the complainant was told that no action/process has been done on his application/case. Therefore, the complainant was requested to submit clarification within 7 days from the date of receipt of this letter. In case no reply is received then the case/application of the complainant shall be kept pending under general category. The complainant did not approach the OP nor submit any explanation to the OP within the stipulated period of 7 days. The complainant himself has admitted that he had already taken priority electricity tube-well connection under chairman quota i.e. connection No.AP21/856F under drip system which is running in the land of the complainant for which complainant has applied/got sanctioned priority tube-well connection from chairman quota and deposited the requisite fee with the OP by concealment of fact. The complainant has not told the OP that he has already got one priority tube-well connection under chairman quota bearing connection No.AP21/856F which is already running in the land of the complainant. As per clause 13.2 condition No.1(i) of ESIM only one connection under priority category is permissible to the landlord/ agriculturist. The complainant has also filed wrong affidavit to the OP that he has not obtained any priority tube-well connection under chairman quota nor he had ever applied for. So, the OP wrote a letter bearing No.429/30 dated 9.6.2016 to the complainant, asking him to clarify the aforesaid fact within 7 days. This letter has been placed on record by the complainant himself. Instead of submitting the explanation/clarification to the OP as per this letter dated 9.6.2016 produced by complainant himself, he filed the present complaint which is totally premature. The complainant through this application has stated that he is ready to disconnect the connection already working in his land and the OP if found necessary can cut or withdraw or cancel its earlier connection obtained by complainant under priority tube-well connection from chairman quota scheme and may issue new one. All this can be done by the OP, if permissible under the rules but this Forum has no power to direct the OP to disconnect his earlier connection and sanctioned new one but the complainant instead of approaching the OP, knocked the door of this Forum to do the function which can be done by the OP under the rules. So, this complaint is totally premature. The complainant should approach the OP with the request made by him in the present complaint and if the OP rejects his request then and only then complainant should approach this Forum under 'The Consumer Protection Act'.

4. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that this Forum can not dismiss the complaint in limine without issuing notice to the OP. In this regard, he relied upon the ruling of Hon'ble Apex Court in case Punj Lloyd Limited Vs. Corporate Risks India Pvt Ltd., 1 (2009) CPJ 10 (SC), in which it has been held that “the Commission should not dismiss the complaint in limine without giving notice to the respondent on the ground that the appellant had raised disputed questions and contentions which were beyond the purview of the Commission”. We have gone through this aforesaid ruling. The facts of that case are totally different from the facts of the present case because in that case the Hon'ble National Commission dismissed the complaint in limine on the ground that the complainant has raised disputed questions and contentions which were beyond the purview of the Commission without giving notice to the OP. But the present complaint has been filed by the complainant which is totally premature because the OP has not rejected the claim/case of the complainant, he was only asked to clarify/explain the position but instead of clarifying the position before the OP, the complainant filed the present complaint in this Forum to get done the work which was within the purview of the OP.

5. Resultantly, we decline the present complaint with the liberty to the complainant to approach the OP to explain/clarify the position which he was asked to explain by the OP through letter bearing No.429/30 dated 9.6.2016 and if the OP decide that case of the complainant either way then and only then the complainant should approach this Forum under 'The Consumer Protection Act'. Therefore, complaint be returned to the complainant. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost, under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Bhupinder Singh

31.08.2016 Member President